I can't help it, I feel as if I have been cheated. It is an amazing photo, and the photographer really caught a special mood in that moment in time. Photography is an art in its own right. What I saw an reacted to when I saw the painting in Copenhagen was a reproduction of another person's experience. They are not interpretations, they are copies. If anyone I knew had taken that photo, and had not been acknowledged, I would have been furious. For me, it's got nothing to do with the money those paintings are sold for - it's theft of another artist's emotions and idea, and I think that's pitiful.

the paintings look great so far, and i flat out don't believe in any kind of creative copyright and especially not in regards to photos - the idea that anybody could 'own' a picture seems ridiculous to me - so i have no problem.

this isn't the same as supporting piracy, i think artists should get paid for their work, but there shouldn't be any restrictions on what other people then do with their work.

Ahhh, the voice of reason.

Anyway, I have said enough already on this ridiculous topic. I refuse to waste any further eyesight on such nonsense.

if they are in the public domain not copyrighted then its much ado about nothing, the first time i saw the paintings i guessed they were based on photographs as bob as far as i know did no touring in asia in the 1890s. or hang out with yakuzas in the 50s.

Maybe we're looking for the proof of art in all the wrong places, maybe it is in the signature.

Maybe Dylan's next move will be to set up a small painting factory, like Pieter Paul Rubens did in his later years, having a team of painters doing the work for him. At least they had to rigorously paint from Rubens' original sketches

Being the Dylan sucker that I am I'm still secretely hoping that all this is just a part of a bigger Bob plan we're are unable to understand at this moment

Hello to all above. Okinawa Soba is back here to say...BEEN THERE, DONE THAT !

Yup, I was in New York City yesterday on some enjoyable photographic business that had already been planned for weeks...and finished up just in time to straggle over to THE GAGOSIAN Gallery on Madison Avenue --- and see Bob Dylan's 4th floor exhibition first hand.

Based on the knowledge that there was a 100-page catalog of the Exhibition, I had mentally mislead myself to expect almost 100 canvases. But, there were only eighteen. I asked, "where are the rest?", and was told that eighteen works of art was the full extent of the show.

So, popping open the sample, 100-page catalog in the reception area, I discovered that the pages were given to interview(s) with Dylan, and the eighteen images "expanded" to fill the rest of the 100 pages by virtue of giving page-by-page attention to various close-up pictures showing details of the paintings.

There have been several great comments above about the history of "appropriation" in art. Although that subject covers a wide range of "techniques" --- from combining, integrating, and re-working elements from several sources to create ONE new painting, to the obvious "spoof" and "satire" paintings that have fun with already well-known works of art --- in Dylan's case, every painting was pretty much a straight case of taking ONE PHOTO, and re-painting it onto canvas using his own rough style of stroke and color.

Only six of his paintings were drawn from my series of old JAPAN and CHINA images on my Flickr photostream.

Although I have already posted my generally negative feelings about "appropriating without source credit", I suddenly came face to face with a personal reason to let Bob Dylan totally slide by on this one : Unbeknownst to him, Bob had painted something onto one of his canvasses that was not in the original PUBLIC DOMAIN images I posted.

Prior to posting on Flickr, I had added an "artificial tag element" to an image that was re-painted into Dylan's work hanging there in the Gallery !

All I could think was, "Oh my God...Dylan painted my fake line!"

At that moment, I had such a good laugh, that all lack of source credit was forgiven !

In the end, through this whole episode, I ended up meeting a lot of nice people, enjoying Central Park (which I had to cut through to get to the Gallery), getting lost after crossing back through Central Park, and trying to find my parking garage, and having four policemen inside a Dunkin' Donuts refuse my offer to buy them all a round of pastries, telling me, "Sorry, we are not allowed to accept bribes".

I drove back through New Jersey, got home to my bed in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania, and fell asleep dreaming of my sneaky brown line that had slipped through the process of "artistic appropriation".

So, THANK YOU BOB DYLAN for making a nice day in New York even better. By the way, your paintings were all nice, your Gagosian gals who ran the Gallery were all kind and friendly, AND.... you may help yourself to any more of my Flickr photos for your next round of Paintings. May I recommend a series on THE OLD PROSTITUTES OF YOKOHAMA !

With this comment, and due to my close proximity to the subject, I hereby recuse myself from giving further opinion on the subject of "appropriation without accreditation", and leave that worthy and important subject up to the more worthy members of this message board.

Maybe we're looking for the proof of art in all the wrong places, maybe it is in the signature.

Maybe Dylan's next move will be to set up a small painting factory, like Pieter Paul Rubens did in his later years, having a team of painters doing the work for him. At least they had to rigorously paint from Rubens' original sketches

Being the Dylan sucker that I am I'm still secretely hoping that all this is just a part of a bigger Bob plan we're are unable to understand at this moment

Hello to all above. Okinawa Soba is back here to say...BEEN THERE, DONE THAT !

Yup, I was in New York City yesterday on some enjoyable photographic business that had already been planned for weeks...and finished up just in time to straggle over to THE GAGOSIAN Gallery on Madison Avenue --- and see Bob Dylan's 4th floor exhibition first hand.

Based on the knowledge that there was a 100-page catalog of the Exhibition, I had mentally mislead myself to expect almost 100 canvases. But, there were only eighteen. I asked, "where are the rest?", and was told that eighteen works of art was the full extent of the show.

So, popping open the sample, 100-page catalog in the reception area, I discovered that the pages were given to interview(s) with Dylan, and the eighteen images "expanded" to fill the rest of the 100 pages by virtue of giving page-by-page attention to various close-up pictures showing details of the paintings.

There have been several great comments above about the history of "appropriation" in art. Although that subject covers a wide range of "techniques" --- from combining, integrating, and re-working elements from several sources to create ONE new painting, to the obvious "spoof" and "satire" paintings that have fun with already well-known works of art --- in Dylan's case, every painting was pretty much a straight case of taking ONE PHOTO, and re-painting it onto canvas using his own rough style of stroke and color.

Only six of his paintings were drawn from my series of old JAPAN and CHINA images on my Flickr photostream.

Although I have already posted my generally negative feelings about "appropriating without source credit", I suddenly came face to face with a personal reason to let Bob Dylan totally slide by on this one : Unbeknownst to him, Bob had painted something onto one of his canvasses that was not in the original PUBLIC DOMAIN images I posted.

Prior to posting on Flickr, I had added an "artificial tag element" to an image that was re-painted into Dylan's work hanging there in the Gallery !

All I could think was, "Oh my God...Dylan painted my fake line!"

At that moment, I had such a good laugh, that all lack of source credit was forgiven !

In the end, through this whole episode, I ended up meeting a lot of nice people, enjoying Central Park (which I had to cut through to get to the Gallery), getting lost after crossing back through Central Park, and trying to find my parking garage, and having four policemen inside a Dunkin' Donuts refuse my offer to buy them all a round of pastries, telling me, "Sorry, we are not allowed to accept bribes".

I drove back through New Jersey, got home to my bed in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania, and fell asleep dreaming of my sneaky brown line that had slipped through the process of "artistic appropriation".

So, THANK YOU BOB DYLAN for making a nice day in New York even better. By the way, your paintings were all nice, your Gagosian gals who ran the Gallery were all kind and friendly, AND.... you may help yourself to any more of my Flickr photos for your next round of Paintings. May I recommend a series on THE OLD PROSTITUTES OF YOKOHAMA !

With this comment, and due to my close proximity to the subject, I hereby recuse myself from giving further opinion on the subject of "appropriation without accreditation", and leave that worthy and important subject up to the more worthy members of this message board.

Cheers !

--- Okinawa Soba

was a squiggly line or a straight line? Bob thought he got one on you but i reckon you saw him coming.

Only six of his paintings were drawn from my series of old JAPAN and CHINA images on my Flickr photostream.

Although I have already posted my generally negative feelings about "appropriating without source credit", I suddenly came face to face with a personal reason to let Bob Dylan totally slide by on this one : Unbeknownst to him, Bob had painted something onto one of his canvasses that was not in the original PUBLIC DOMAIN images I posted.

Prior to posting on Flickr, I had added an "artificial tag element" to an image that was re-painted into Dylan's work hanging there in the Gallery !

All I could think was, "Oh my God...Dylan painted my fake line!"

At that moment, I had such a good laugh, that all lack of source credit was forgiven !

Okinawa, this is one of the best Dylan related "appropriation" stories I have ever heard. Thank you for sharing this with us. I want now so badly to see both your original image and the painting of Bob's with the artificial tag element painted into it. This is truly a fabulous piece of Dylan history. I'm completely agog by it.

I don't post much, but just want to throw in my 2 cents. My longtime "quasi-ex-wife" has been a painter for most of her life. She often uses photos as a source. I never saw that as her being less of an artist. On the contrary; this would amaze me. She found something deep in the photo & turned it into something else. Of course, she does other types of paintings (as Dylan does), but this is not stealing. I've been writing art criticism for this paper in NYC for about 3 years now (even though I'm a musician) & in my visits to hundreds of galleries have never seen a plaque next to a painting detailing a source photo. The funny thing is that a lot of painters that I've interviewed have told me how they based their painting on a picture. The art world isn't like the music world; well maybe it is in a way, but this isn't a big deal. As was posted previously, no copyright holder (weren't they public domain anyway?) made an issue out of this. As far as Gagosian having a press release that says Dylan did this on his recent Asian tour- documenting his travels, well that's Gagosian being Gagosian.It's funny to see such a tiff being raised here.

the paintings are pretty good, if i could afford one id get one, the photos they are based are good too but they dont move me as the paintings do.

I love Bob. I'm devoted to him and beholding to him for the joy his music has brought me all these many years. I will continue to feel that way about him till the day I die. But ........ the only reason these paintings are hanging in a New York gallery and getting all of this attention is because Bob's signature is on them. Using a photograph for inspiration is one thing, putting one's own interpretation and expression into it, removing some things and adding others, but painting it verbatim, so to speak, even including Noodle Soup's tag line into the painting, well, you might as well be painting by numbers. And then to charge big bucks for it. I think it's sad. Stupid and sad. I would rather have the little crayon scribbled drawings of my grandchildren hanging on my walls. Something honest and unique.

I love Bob. I'm devoted to him and beholding to him for the joy his music has brought me all these many years. I will continue to feel that way about him till the day I die. But ........ the only reason these paintings are hanging in a New York gallery and getting all of this attention is because Bob's signature is on them. Using a photograph for inspiration is one thing, putting one's own interpretation and expression into it, removing some things and adding others, but painting it verbatim, so to speak, even including Noodle Soup's tag line into the painting, well, you might as well be painting by numbers. And then to charge big bucks for it. I think it's sad. Stupid and sad. I would rather have the little crayon scribbled drawings of my grandchildren hanging on my walls. Something honest and unique.

Bloggers are a sensitive bunch. A couple of them were feuding not long ago about who copied set lists from who etc. Of course neither were the original set list 'maker',but its all about who blogs it first. here its the same, almost like its his photos putting tags on them.Aint nothing wrong being devoted to Bob, if its your thing go with it. Me i prefer his paintings to his music with the cornpone band backings, kill me but thats the way i feeli like em, if they didnt have bobs signature id buy em, probably for cheap. but since they have bobs sig on them you have to pay plenty. later on, you sell for a lot plentier too.

Okinawa, this is one of the best Dylan related "appropriation" stories I have ever heard. Thank you for sharing this with us. I want now so badly to see both your original image and the painting of Bob's with the artificial tag element painted into it. This is truly a fabulous piece of Dylan history. I'm completely agog by it.

Hi Leocadia,

Thanks for the comment. The story reflected my actual thoughts and impressions at the exhibit. Having just looked at the original Flickr post, the "artificial line" is accurate, but the "cryptic" manner in the way I wrote about it demands some tweaking here -- especially after I just pulled up the image to review it.

In this case, the artificial line is the semi-borderline. It's not hidden or secret as implied by my first comment (and I should shoot myself for making the implication). The "tag" is an obvious one. I pulled it down from the top curve of the half-stereoview on the left. On the right side, the rises up only halfway, and disappears into the shadows above the large vase.

Normally, borderlines completely frame a photograph, but in this case it was born from and disappears into the same sepia-colored back-grounds. With differing heights of the rising end-points, it was my unorthodox way to meld border and photo, while leaving the raw dome of the die-cut print on it's grey-colored mount

Dylan painted in a short upper segment of my left-hand border where it cuts off the white hanging cloth. It's hard to describe accurately, but my added border line is even more pronounced in Dylan's painting.

Anyway, when I saw that extension of my artificial line down into the painting, that's when I had my little chuckle.

I regret that I did not say "part of a decorative border line" in my first comment, as that is certainly a better description of my "tag" than saying "artificial line in the photo".

I use the word "Tag" for anything added (or subtracted) to a final post that will help me quickly ID an image when posted "as is" on the many blogs and websites --- over 1000 of them so far. And, they are all free to use under Flickr's terms of service.

On the other hand, for many of my other photos, I actually do insert extra clandestine, hidden lines and objects, and make minor changes to the content. A tree in the background will "grow" an extra limb...or lose one ! A rock seen off to the side might move its position slightly. Ten bamboo poles on a boat in the back will become...eleven. A flower garden in the background will lose one flower. An inconsequential figure in the distance... moves, or disappears.

Objects in the photos that are of documentary importance, and the focus of the photographer remain untouched. Publishers requesting the raw scans get just that --- minus my Flickr "tags".

WHY DO I DO THAT ? Because...adding a meaningless "OKINAWA SOBA COLLECTION" watermarks into the images would destroy the purpose of the "Photo Philanthropy" behind the posts : Giving folks beautiful historic images for free use...without my name being smeared all over images I didn't even take.

Questions of "source credit" for freely-offered posts such as mine (which are based on Public Domain images) boil down to matters of social ethics and community manners, not issues of legality.

In any event, Dylan painted a chunk of my "artificial" border line into his painting (he even made it thicker!), and that's what made me laugh.

Again, my apologies for being too cryptic about "the artificial line" in my first post above. All else is as straightforward as I wrote it. You may now reduce your original degree of being agog.

Cheers !

--- Okinawa Soba

PS. A couple of Dylan's paintings I actually preferred to the original photographs !

Yeah, i thought her use of the word 'painting' was hopeful PR-speak - but maybe he painted over a blown-up copy like he did with the previous series?

Hi Eye & welcome aboard. Not sure what your post is suggesting - the quote was in reference to the LIFE magazine cover piece, as we're not sure how it was produced. In the Drawn Blank series, they took sketches he'd done, blew them up and he did watercolors over them. In the case of the LIFE mag image, I thought maybe he'd done something similar as the PR rep referred to it as a 'painting'. But if you're suggesting that the word 'painting' exaggerates what dylan is doing in this show, well - you may be able to make that case.

As soon as I saw the "Scribe" (actually a kneeling Japanese government official) it looked familiar, yet I cannot immediately dig up a link for you.

The second image you asked about, "Idol", is a Japanese "Nio" Statue at the entrance to a Temple in Nikko. I'm sure I've seen the exact print Dylan used, but again no immediate link to the exact print.

Here it is from variant angle in a 1890s print on the Syracuse University Art Galleries website :

NOTE : The second photo in the group is restricted to Flickr member friends, and won't be accessible from outside "click-through" visitors until I get the Receptionist to clear the use of her photo. I simply forgot to ask her when I took the picture, and will phone the Gallery when they re-open on Tuesday.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum